Is the US a Nation of Immigrants, or a Nation of White Supremacy?

I wanted to take a minute to respond to two logically contradictory claims that I frequently hear from the anti-American, anti-white, radical left. The first is the claim that “America is a nation of immigrants”. The second is that the US is founded on white supremacy. Obviously both of these claims can’t be true. The contradiction should be painfully obvious to anyone. When radical leftists say, “America is a nation of immigrants”, they’re trying to deny that the US is a white, Christian nation. They’re trying to say that the US has always been a land of multiculturalism and diversity, and that this country is not a white homeland. But if the US was founded on multiculturalism and diversity, and was intended by its founders to be a great “melting pot”, then how can we say that it was founded on white supremacy? On one hand, we’re told that white Europeans stole this land from the “Native Americans”; but on the other hand, we’re told that this country was built by immigrants from all over the world. Which is it? My answer is, “neither”. But you certainly can’t answer, “both”. If America is a nation of immigrants (and always has been), then it can’t also be a nation founded on white supremacy. If the US was founded on white supremacy, then obviously its founders did not intend for it to be a multicultural “melting pot”. It’s one or the other...or neither. I say, “neither”, so I’m going to dismantle both claims. First, let’s consider the, “nation of immigrants” claim. Let’s start by considering the construction of this statement, and the definition of the key words. What is a “nation”, and what is an “immigrant”? I’m not always a fan of dictionary definitions, because dictionary definitions don’t always reflect the way words are used and understood in a particular context. But when I looked up the definition of “nation” on dictionary.com, this is what I found: “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly it’s own.” I agree with the first part. A nation is a people who share a common ancestry, culture, and identity. That’s how I would define a nation. And I would argue that it’s the only definition that actually makes sense. But I also looked up the definition in Merriam-Webster, and got a couple of alternative definitions that are absolutely nonsensical. One definition it gave was, “a politically organized nationality”. Notice that here, like in the first definition, a nation is defined in terms of being subject to a particular government or political body. But notice the weird circular nature of this definition. We’re told that a nation is a politically organized nationality. But what is a nationality? Do you see the circularity of this definition? What does it mean to be of a nationality? It means you’re a member of a nation, right? So what is a nation? A politically organized nationality! This definition is nonsensical. And aside from being circular, I think it places too much emphasis on political organization. It seems to be claiming that nationality is a matter of political organization. Essentially then, a nation is a legal fiction according to this twisted definition. Random people become politically organized and all of a sudden they are a nation. But then what would it mean to say that a nation is a politically organized nationality? And what would this mean for a nation like the US that becomes politically divided? Is it still a nation? How can America be a “nation of immigrants” if it isn’t even a nation? So this definition has to be rejected. The next definition given by Merriam Webster is even more strange. It says a nation is, “a non-Jewish nationality”. To me, it seems potentially anti-semitic to exclude Jews from consideration for nationhood. What if Jews are politically organized? Wouldn’t they be a nation then according to the last definition? Does the nation of Israel exist, or doesn’t it? And, in the Old Testament, didn’t God promise to make Abraham “the father of many nations”? So if the word “nation” refers exclusively to non-Jews for some mysterious reason, then does that mean that Abraham is only the father of non-Jews, and not Jews? I think you can see that this definition breaks down pretty quickly too. And it returns us to my definition, which is that a nation is a people with a common ancestry, culture, and identity. And I would probably emphasize ancestry. This is the way a nation has always been understood. When we read that God promised to make Abraham the father of many nations, clearly he’s not saying that Abraham would be the father of a large group of random, unrelated people who organize politically. And if Jews say they are the descendants of Abraham, then it makes no sense to say that a nation is, by definition, non-Jewish. Clearly what this Bible story means is that Abraham would have many sons, and that his sons would have many sons. The word “nation” comes from the same root word as “natal”. It has to do with birth. Your nationality is something you’re born with. You’re born into a nation. You can’t immigrate into a nation. You can immigrate into a country, but you can’t immigrate into a nation. You can immigrate into a country, or territory, that is occupied by a nation, and you can assimilate into that nation’s culture and adopt their values. And if you do that, a lot of nations will accept you as a part of their society. You can become a citizen of their country, but you can’t actually become a member of their nation. What I’m saying is simply definitional. I’m arguing for a set of definitions that are at least essentially logically consistent, and that actually make sense. I’m not even outlining any particular policy positions at this point in the discussion. In order to even have a rational discussion, we first have to have clear and sensible definitions. Otherwise we don’t even know what we’re talking about when we say things like, “we’re a nation of immigrants.” Merriam Webster gives one other definition that I want to comment on. It says a nation is, “a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status.” Once again, this is utter nonsense. What sense could it possibly make to say that a nation is made up of multiple nationalities? It’s very obvious that the people who are rewriting the dictionary and redefining words have a political agenda. But what does it mean to say that a nation is made up of people of many nationalities? And again, what is a nationality? This is another circular definition. It’s circular and contradictory. It’s contradictory because if a nation is made up of people of different nationalities, then members of that nation are defined as members of other nations. Imagine having an organization for people who are members of different organizations. The one thing that members of this organization have in common is that they’re all members of different organization. But this is more absurd than that. This is like defining an organization as a body of people who are members of one or more organization. All I’ve done is substitute the word “organization” for “nation”. Would you accept that as a valid definition for the word, “organization”? This is what they’re doing to our language. And it’s absolutely Orwellian. The idea is to control your thoughts by controlling language. How can you think in nationalistic terms if you don’t even have the words to form such thoughts in your mind? How can you have thoughts of defending your nation if the very word “nation” has been erased from your vocabulary? Maybe the word remains, but the definition of the word has been replaced by something completely nonsensical. And so any phrases or slogans that contain those words are nonsensical. The slogan, “we are a nation of immigrants” is nonsensical. What does it even mean? It encapsulates everything that these revised definitions are intended to program you to think. The idea is that we are just a bunch of atomized individuals with no common ancestry, no common history, no common culture or values, and no common identity. The one thing we all have in common is that we are all strangers in a foreign land, and that we’re all ruled by the same political institutions. Review the definitions I read previously, and you’ll see that this is essentially what they are all getting at. Who is it that’s rewriting our dictionaries? That might be worth looking into. But let’s move on and look at the word “immigrant”. Merriam Webster defines an immigrant as “one that immigrates”, or as “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence”. At least this is a fairly straight-forward definition. Interestingly, it also says, “a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown.” In some ways, I actually find this definition far more instructive than the previous one, especially if we include people in it, and don’t restrict it to just plants and animals. After all, people are part of the animal kingdom, aren’t we? Humans are a species of primate. So immigrants are people who immigrate to an area or region where they were previously unknown, to take up permanent residence. All I did there was combine these definitions into a single coherent definition. And unlike the definition of “nation”, I don’t see any contradiction or circularity in this one. And I just want to point out that a lot of plants and animals are named after the geographic region where they originated. An Alaskan snow crab isn’t just any crab that immigrates to Alaska. And a Siberian Tiger is still a Siberian Tiger is it takes up permanent residence in the San Francisco zoo. And in the same way, a person is Asian if they belong to the racial group that originated in Asia. They don’t become African if they immigrate to Africa. An African doesn’t become Asian if they immigrate to an Asian country. And the main problem with the definitions of “nation” that I read earlier, is that they confuse geography with biology. Of course, Asia is a continent. But an Asian isn’t just anyone who lives in Asian. An Asian is someone who is a member of the racial group that originated in Asia. And of course, it’s a very large racial group. Different members of that large racial group migrated into different territories in Asia and formed separate nations. Some of them began calling themselves Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and so on. And each of these subgroups established their own independent territories and developed their own culture and identity as a nation. So the country of Japan is the geographic territory occupied by the Japanese people. A country and a nation are not the same thing. A country is the territory that a nation claims as their homeland. A nation is a people with a common ancestry, identity, and culture. Throughout history, different nations have fought wars over different territories. And obviously that continues to this day. And of course, many times throughout history, one nation has invaded the country of another nation. Sometimes they have driven them from their homeland, sometimes they’ve slaughtered them all, and other times they’ve forced them to live as slaves. In the first case, I suppose you could say that a nation that is driven from its homeland becomes “a nation of immigrants”. Their country has been invaded and conquered, so now they’re forced to migrate and find a new territory and establish a new homeland. In the second case, I suppose you could say that the conquering nation is a “nation of immigrants” too. They immigrated to an area where they were previously unknown and established permanent residency there...either driving out, enslaving, or slaughtering the previous inhabitants. I know that most of us don’t like that this is the history of humanity, but this is the history of humanity. And really, it’s simply the history of the world. It isn’t just limited to humans. Nature is red in tooth and claw, as the saying goes. Even the dictionary definition of the word “immigrant” recognizes that animals, and even plants, follow this pattern. Different species of plants and animals compete with one another for territorial dominance. Every species and subspecies has a natural and instinctive desire to survive and replicate. Those who fail to do so go extinct. Those who succeed survive to fight another day. And I have to point out that reproduction is an act of war. Sex is a form of warfare. If members of a species reproduce at a higher rate than another species, their population increases. Therefore its need for territorial expansion increases. And this creates a conflict with other species. It leads to competition with other species for territorial dominance. This applies to humans as well as to other animals and plants. And of course, a species with a larger population has a competitive advantage over species with smaller populations. This is why gardeners pull weeds. As the population of a particular weed increases, it chokes out the other plants that share the soil. In other words, as the immigrant population increases, its territorial dominance increases. And the native inhabitants’ territorial dominance decreases. Every ecologist knows this. Introducing a new species of plant or animal into an foreign ecosystem is disruptive. No scientist will deny this. It is simply a scientific fact. And this applies to human populations just as much as it does to other animal and plant populations. Religious traditions that promote non-violence recognize this. This is why these traditions always promote celibacy. Ironically, the promotion of such religious ideologies can be a form of warfare, or ideological subversion. Why do you think certain subversive groups began promoting certain kinds of spirituality in the US back in the 60’s? Could it be for the same reason that they promoted feminism, homosexuality, communism, and libertarianism? Don’t misunderstand me. I’m only saying that these ideologies have been weaponized. I’m not saying that there aren’t healthy (or at least benign) forms of some of these ideologies. Personally, I love zen and vedanta philosophy. I love gnosticism. But I recognize that corrupt and perverted forms of these teachings have been popularized for subversive purposes. The goal is to erode the traditions that have held our nation together, such as Christianity. The new atheist movement is another part of this. Personally, I think it’s good to challenge religious dogma, and to promote reason and evidence over faith. So it isn’t that I’m against atheism. It isn’t that I’m against gnosticism and eastern spiritual traditions. Anyone who has followed my work knows that isn’t the case. I’m simply recognizing that these things have been weaponized. In the same way, I’m not against women’s rights. But I recognize that the feminist movement is not really about women’s rights. It’s about destroying Western civilization. It’s about convincing women to pursue careers instead of starting families. It’s about lowering birth rates. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism is part of the same agenda. The same goes for abortion obviously. I promote Pythagorean philosophy as a healthy alternative. Pythagoras taught much of the same wisdom that’s found in the eastern traditions and in the western mystery tradition. But he taught a non-weaponized form of authentic spirituality. He didn’t teach mean and women to become celibate monks and nuns. He himself was married and had several children. And he promoted family values. But he also promoted chastity...not celibacy, but chastity. The Pythagorean view was that sex was for procreation, that sex should be within the context of marriage, and that marriage is between one man and one woman. Pythagoras was not an atheistic materialist, but he did clearly promote reason and knowledge, although he didn’t seek to destroy the religious traditions of his nation. Instead he taught his followers to honor the gods...meaning the gods that were worshipped in their native land, or any land they might visit, I believe. I certainly don’t see Pythagoras as a communist, but the Pythagoreans did share their wealth with other members of their community. Pythagoras would probably not support the libertarian party if he were alive today either, but it does seem clear to me that he was against tyrannical government, coercive systems of power, and the initiation of force. So again, these things aren’t bad. It’s only that they’ve been weaponized. An apple isn’t bad. But a poisoned apple can be used as a kind of weapon. And if you look into who is really behind the communist revolutions, the libertarian movement, the new atheist movement, the feminist movement, the LGBT movement, the pro-choice movement, the push for massive foreign immigration, the push to control language and though, the push to censor speech that goes against their agenda, and so on, you’ll find that a shocking and vastly disproportionate percentage of them are all members of one particular nation. And they are a nation of immigrants, and a nation built on ethnic supremacism. So I guess I stand corrected, it is possible to be both, but only if you define these words properly like I do. If you define these words in circular and logically contradictory ways, as they do, it’s impossible. The idea that the US was founded by white supremacists as a diverse and multicultural nation of immigrants is absurd on the face of it. But now that we have a clear understanding of what words actually mean, and what kind of world we actually live in, let’s consider how these claims are both true in a sense...even though they’re both false in the sense that we’re indoctrinated to believe. If by “America”, we mean the “country” rather than the “nation”, then yes different groups have immigrated here. If I go far enough back in history, I’ll get into some controversial topics, so I’ll hold back a little bit. But if we start with the “native Americans”, obviously we know they immigrated here from the Asian continent. But of course, they didn’t call themselves “native Americans”, and they didn’t call this “America”. They called themselves the Aztecs, the Cherokee, the Comanche, the Sioux, etc. We’re in the habit of speaking of them as if they were all one nation, but they didn’t see themselves that way. They were many nations. They spoke different languages. They had different cultures. And of course, just like other nations, they fought tribal wars for territorial dominance. One nation conquered other nations, enslaved other nations, drove other nations from their land, and slaughtered other nations. Of course, some nations were more peaceful, and others were more warlike. This is true all over the world, and the nations that populated the American continent were no exception. So you might say there were all “nations of immigrants”, and they were all “countries built on racial supremacy”. By that, I only mean that they cared about the survival of their own people, or their own tribe. And that they recognized other neighboring tribes as potential threats, for the reasons I explained earlier. To be clear, I do strongly believe that different nations can and should work toward peaceful and mutually beneficial relations, but I’m not naive. Both parties have to want peace in order for their to be peace. And unfortunately there are many who choose the path of violence and war...including various forms of covert warfare. And so we simply have to face reality, as harsh as reality may seem. But if we accept the idea that America has always been a nation of immigrants, can we really say that the Europeans stole America from the Natives? After all, didn’t they have as much right to immigrate here as they did? It has become common to hear radical leftists call the demographic displacement of the native tribes as genocide. But of course, there were no gas chambers. There was no genocidal plan to exterminate however many million of them. Of course, I’m not denying that there were deaths due to disease and starvation, and I’m not denying that any bad things happened. Bad things always happen when different tribes or nation compete for territorial dominance. From what I’ve read, it seems to me that the Spanish conquistadors were pretty bad. But that has nothing to do with the British colonists who settled in North American and eventually declared their independence from Britain and formed the United States. And I’m specifically dealing with the question of whether the US is a nation of immigrants built on white supremacy. But it does seem strange that we’re never told that Mexico is a nation of immigrants, doesn’t it? If the US is a nation of immigrants, then so is Mexico and every other South American country if we’re going to be logically consistent. We should also say that Israel is a nation of immigrants. The citizens of the state of Israel immigrated there from all around the world. And of course, this drove the people who already lived there from their land. So whatever can be said about the US could be said about Israel too. If the US is a nation of immigrants founded on racial supremacy, then so is Israel. So is virtually every other nation for that matter. And so clearly this is nothing more than propaganda and psychological warfare. We might also ask whether the mass migration of Western Europeans had anything to do with centuries of Islamic conquest of white christian nations. We don’t hear very much about the Muslim Arabs stealing land from White Christians. We only ever hear about how the White Christians stole the land from the Native Americans. Why is this? Remember what I said earlier. When people are driven from their land, they’re forced to immigrate and settle in new lands. This is simply the way of the world. And this is the way it’s been all around the world, all throughout human history. I’m not saying it’s good. I’m just saying it’s the way it is. Maybe it can be different, but the only way to get there is together. Where we go one, we go all. But in any case, it’s simply a fact of history that the American colonies were founded by and settled by immigrants from Britain. These were founded as British colonies. These British colonists were Anglo Saxons who came here to create a new homeland for their people...not to create some kind of great melting pot. When these British colonists declared their independence from the British monarchy, it’s clear that they were founding a new nation. But the US was founded as a new nation of Anglo Saxons. The right to vote was restricted to free, white men. Immigrants were allowed pretty much exclusively from Anglo Saxon countries. So the US may have been a nation of immigrants in a sense, but it was a nation of Anglo Saxon, or White Western European immigrants. It’s true that immigrants built this country. White Western European immigrants build this country. And ironically, the claim that “immigrants built America” is essentially an admission that Native Americans did not build this country. What we call America today was built by white Europeans. Again, this is simply a statement of historical fact. It isn’t meant to put anyone down. So it’s true that the US is a nation of immigrants. It is a nation of Anglo Saxon immigrants from Western Europe. But it’s false that it was founded as a nation of multiculturalism and racial diversity, or as some kind of melting pot with open borders that was open to anyone who wanted to come here. And it’s true that the US was founded on “white supremacy”, if by that you simply mean that it was founded as a homeland for white European people and their future offspring. And of course, now, any white person who wants a homeland for European people and a future for their future decendents is acused of being a white supremacist. But if that’s all white supremacy means, then I really don’t see what’s so bad about it. I’ve always thought that a white supremacist was someone who wants to oppress people of other races, or someone who promotes or carries out acts of hatred and violence against other people based on their race or ethnicity. And I don’t think that applies to the people who settled the original British colonies, fought for their independence from the British monarchy, founded the US, and built America….except maybe for the one or two percent of Americans who owned slaves. But if we’re going to talk about that, we should be fair and also talk about the much larger number of African slaves who were sold in South America and in the Islamic countries in the Middle East and Africa where they still have slavery today. And we should talk about the white christians who were captured and forced into slavery in the Muslim world, including many European women who were forced to be sex slaves. I condemn it all, of course, but these kinds of accusations are only ever hurled at Americans. The selective moral outrage suggests a deeper agenda, which is essentially just a form of psychological warfare. And ironically, these accusations are an admission that America is a white country. When they say that Americans stole this land from the Natives, they don’t mean that some diverse and multicultural nation of immigrants from all around the world stole this land from the Natives. They mean white people stole this land from the natives. So they clearly recognize that the American people have a racial identity. And again, when they talk about Americans owning slaves, they don’t mean that some diverse and multicultural nation of immigrants from all around the world owned slaves. They mean white people owned slaves. So again, they clearly recognize that Americans have a racial identity. And of course, the vast majority of Americans did not own slaves. Only about one or two percent did. And they were basically the equivalent back then of “the one percent” that leftists were protesting against during the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Clearly we all know that the one percent does not represent the ninety nine percent. This one or two percent doesn’t care about America or the interests of the American people. And they don’t really think of themselves as American. They’re internationalists and globalists. And it’s worth looking into who these people actually are. But I’m going to end here for now. Thanks for listening. Peace.